City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Maly]

Ha ha ha ha & not 2 fucks were given

They can write what they want, we’re top of the table, pretty much through to the next round of CL, should put Posh to bed (not the skinny cow I may add) in the FA Cup & are now tasting the salty tears of the press yet AGAIN

I love it. Keep on crying you bunch of bitter cunts :)

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Full link to the article on open source archive.ph here:

archive.ph

The article is very detailed and very long:)

Having now read it I can't see that much wrong with it. It pretty much dismisses the "sportswashing" narrative because it shows clearly that the business strategy of CFG is commercial and economic (backed up by the old quote from Garry Cook) The feature also makes it clear that City have done nothing illegal and explains the CAS case in a fairer way (ie stressing the only breach we made was "non-co-operation." It also points out that other clubs have done exactly the same thing with sponsorship deals.
The only issue I have is why pick out City and publish this now. Anyone who has ever worked in business will know full well that the vast majority of commercial deals (probably more than 90 per cent) always heavily rely on personal contacts between people who already have established personal or business links. In fact it is the entire way business deals are done whether we like it or not. If the Athletic want to go down this route than they should start looking at the commercial sponsorhips of every club in the PL. That would be a can of worms.

 

[KS55]

Having now read it I can't see that much wrong with it. It pretty much dismisses the "sportswashing" narrative because it shows clearly that the business strategy of CFG is commercial and economic (backed up by the old quote from Garry Cook) The feature also makes it clear that City have done nothing illegal and explains the CAS case in a fairer way (ie stressing the only breach we made was "non-co-operation." It also points out that other clubs have done exactly the same thing with sponsorship deals.
The only issue I have is why pick out City and publish this now. Anyone who has ever worked in business will know full well that the vast majority of commercial deals (probably more than 90 per cent) always heavily rely on personal contacts between people who already have established personal or business links. In fact it is the entire way business deals are done whether we like it or not. If the Athletic want to go down this route than they should start looking at the commercial sponsorhips of every club in the PL. That would be a can of worms.

I wonder if the author has ever heard of networking?

 

[Paladin]

I was interested to learn that City's deal with Nexen had judged market value just about right because United made a deal worth 2/3 more, which they're obviously entitled to. I would like a bit of explanation though.

I wondered about this too. If United's deal is for £15m, what's to say we can't get a deal for the same amount or even more? After all, we are far more successful than them on the pitch, and are likely to be for the foreseeable future.

So who decides what is fair value? If ever there was a deal that wasn't fair value, it was the Chevrolet one, where the person that signed it off for the American company was sacked for acting beyond his authorisation remit.

I also don't think there has been an overreaction from City fans about this article. As has already been pointed out, the article contains inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It highlights some of the new ownership structure, which might be new for some people, but everything else is old news. What is its purpose? Its title says it poses the question what our structure means for Newcastle United. Really? I didn't see it as an appraisal of how Newcastle would be treated or impacted by FFP or the new PL regulations. It was just muddying the waters surrounding City, lest anyone should forget that in the eyes of popular opinion we are already cheats.

It is disingenuous, but you only need to quickly look at RAWK to see that it achieves its objective of keeping us up there with Lance Armstrong as the biggest cheats in sport.

 

[domalino]

So much for a subscription based service not having to pander to the usual suspects!

People keep writing stuff like this but the entire business model is that you get pandered to.

That's the schtick. You read stories by local journalists dedicated to covering your club.

They made that clear from the off, so I'm always a bit confused when people complain about them pandering or being partisan.

 

[domalino]

The only issue I have is why pick out City and publish this now.

I would assume it's just when he's finished it. The rule was passed last month and we've been announcing sponsors on a regular basis since, so it's topical.

He's previously written articles about -

Burnley's shady American ownership
Wolves & Mendes
American Billionaire owners' designs on changing the sport
Newcastle's takeover
The Glazers financial mismanagement and bad ownership of United

So it's hard to really make a case that Crafton writing an article on City's owners is biased or special treatment.

Personally I see it as a validation as much as anything. Someone has forensically gone through every single sponsor at the club and found no wrongdoing, great!

 

[Maly]

I wonder if the author has ever heard of networking?

Or Bob-a-Job?

 

[Carlos- the- jackal]

Or Bob-a-Job?

Or daft Donald on the cadge!

 

[Bodicoteblue]

“The pope is a catholic”
”this is perfectly legal and above board”
”he was given the job by his catholic friends and colleagues “
”catholics seem to hold a lot of influence on who becomes pope”
”it has to be said every pope ever has been a catholic”
”this perfectly legal and above board”

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I would assume it's just when he's finished it. The rule was passed last month and we've been announcing sponsors on a regular basis since, so it's topical.

He's previously written articles about -

Burnley's shady American ownership
Wolves & Mendes
American Billionaire owners' designs on changing the sport
Newcastle's takeover
The Glazers financial mismanagement and bad ownership of United

So it's hard to really make a case that Crafton writing an article on City's owners is biased or special treatment.

Personally I see it as a validation as much as anything. Someone has forensically gone through every single sponsor at the club and found no wrongdoing, great!

That's a fair point. There are a few factual errors in the article (relating to the time barred stuff) but broadly it is just a background article which explains our business model. How can it be wrong for example for the Emirates Palace, the leading hotel in Abu Dhabi, to be one of our partners? The hotel has been given amazing exposure from its links with MCFC.
I also thought the reference to LFC having lower revenues than us is strange. Despite Liverpool's global reach they have underperformed badly for most of the last 12 years and City have overtaken them. We have probably been the most successful club in world football in the last decade..that has to come with a financial bonus.